Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36587

(G) Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 8,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2)).

VI. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Nitrogen oxides, Implementation plans.

Dated: June 25, 1998.

William E. Muno,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.

Subpart KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone

(a) * * *

(8) Approval—On April 27, 1998,

Ohio submitted a revision to remove the

air quality triggers from the ozone

maintenance plans for the following

areas in Ohio: Canton (Stark County),

Cleveland (Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake,

Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit

and Portage Counties), Columbus

(Franklin, Delaware and Licking

Counties), Steubenville (Jefferson

County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood

Counties), Youngstown (Mahoning and

Trumbull Counties) as well as Clinton

County, Columbiana County, and Preble

County.

[FR Doc. 98–17972 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6119–9]

Washington: Final Authorization of

State Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Washington has applied for

Final authorization of a revision to its

hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed

Washington’s application and

determined that its hazardous waste

program revision satisfies all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

Final authorization. Unless adverse

written comments are received during

the review and comment period

provided in this direct final rule, EPA’s

decision to approve Washington’s

hazardous waste program revision will

take effect as provided below.

Washington’s application for program

revision is available for public review

and comment.

DATES: This Final authorization for

Washington shall be effective October 5,

1998, if EPA receives no adverse

comment on this document by August 6,

1998. Should EPA receive adverse

comments, EPA will withdraw this rule

before the effective date by publishing a

notice of withdrawal in the Federal

Register. Any comments on

Washington’s program revision

application must be filed by August 6,

1998. Written comments may also be

provided to the address below by

August 6, 1998. If no adverse comments

are received by August 6, 1998, the

immediate final rule will take effect and

no further action will be taken on the

companion proposal, which appears in

the proposed rules section elsewhere in

this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Washington

program revision application and the

materials which EPA used in evaluating

the revision are available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours at the following addresses: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101, contact at (206) 553–

1259; and the Washington Department

of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey,

WA 98503, contact Patricia Hervieux,

(360) 407–6756. Written comments

should be sent to Nina Kocourek, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, WCM–122, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–

6502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200

Sixth Avenue, WCM–122, Seattle, WA

98101, (206) 553–6502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

States with final authorization under

section 3006(b) of the RCRA 42 U.S.C.

6926(b), have a continuing obligation to

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

hazardous waste program.

Revisions to State hazardous waste

programs are necessary when Federal or

State statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, State program

revisions are necessitated by changes to

EPA’s regulations in Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

The revision requested by Washington

in its current application is not a result

of a change to EPA’s rules or

regulations, nor is it a result of changes

to Washington’s rules and regulations.

Washington’s application for revision

results from unique agreements between

Washington, the United States and the

Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Washington

seeks revision of its authorized program

to include ‘‘non-trust lands’’ within the

exterior boundaries of the Puyallup

Indian reservation (hereafter referred to

as the ‘‘1873 Survey Area’’ or ‘‘Survey

Area’’) pursuant to a settlement

agreement finalized in 1988 and ratified

by Congress in 1989, which allows

Washington to seek authorization for

such lands after consultation and

communication with the Puyallup

Tribe.

B. Washington

The State of Washington initially

received Final Authorization on January

30, 1986 (51 FR 3782), effective January

31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), to implement its

base hazardous waste management

program. Washington received

authorization for revisions to its

program on November 23, 1987 (52 FR

35556, 9/22/87), October 16, 1990 (55

FR 33695, 8/17/90), November 4, 1994

(59 FR 55322, 11/4/94), and April 29,

1996 (41 FR 7736, 2/29/96)

On June 16, 1998, Washington

submitted a final complete program

application to revise its program to

include non-trust lands within the 1873

Survey Area of the Puyallup Tribe

reservation. Today, Washington is
36588 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

seeking approval of its program revision

in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).

The EPA reviewed Washington’s

application, and now makes an

immediate final decision, subject to

receipt of adverse written comment, that

Washington’s hazardous waste program

revision satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for Final

Authorization. Consequently, EPA

intends to grant Final Authorization to

Washington for the revision.

As provided in the Proposed Rules

section of today’s FR, the public may

submit written comments on EPA’s

proposed final decision until August 6,

1998. Copies of Washington’s

application for program revision are

available for inspection and copying at

the locations indicated in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA does not receive adverse

written comment on Washington’s

program revision by the end of the

comment period, the authorization of

Washington’s revision shall become

effective 90 days from the date this

document is published and EPA will

take no further action on the companion

document appearing in the Proposed

Rules section of today’s Federal

Register. If the Agency does receive

adverse written comment, it will

publish a notice withdrawing this

immediate final rule before its effective

date. EPA then will address the

comments in a later final rule based on

the companion document appearing in

the Proposed Rules section of today’s

Federal Register. EPA may not provide

additional opportunity for comment.

Any parties interested in commenting

should do so in accordance with the

time frame provided in today’s Federal

Register.

1. State’s Revision Request

The State of Washington applied to

the EPA to revise its authorized

hazardous waste program to include

‘‘non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey

Area of the Puyallup Reservation,’’ as

defined in the Washington Indian

(Puyallup) Land Claims Settlement, 25

U.S.C. 1773 et seq., also cited as the

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement

Act (hereafter ‘‘Settlement Act’’), as part

of the State’s authorized program. The

Settlement Act allocates jurisdiction

according to an ‘‘Agreement between

the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, local

Governments in Pierce County, the State

of Washington, the United States of

America, and certain private property

owners,’’ (August 27, 1988), hereafter

referred to as the ‘‘Settlement

Agreement.’’ See 25 U.S.C. 1773–1773j.

Relying on the Congressional

ratification provided in the agreement,

the State of Washington is seeking

authorization to include non-trust lands

within the 1873 Survey Area as part of

its authorized program. The State of

Washington is not requesting

authorization for any new federal rules

with this program revision.

2. Analysis of State Submission on

Revision of Program

In support of its original interim base

program application, Washington

asserted it had jurisdiction generally

over all lands within state borders.

However for the limited purpose of

supporting its request for this revision,

the State relied solely on the Settlement

Act, 25 U.S.C. 1773 et seq., as the basis

for its assertion of jurisdiction over nontrust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.

The Settlement Act ratified and

confirmed the 1988 Settlement

Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement

Act, the ‘‘Tribe shall retain and exercise

jurisdiction, and the United States and

the State and political subdivisions

thereof shall retain and exercise

jurisdiction, as provided in the

Settlement Agreement and Technical

Documents and, where not provided

therein, as otherwise provided by

Federal law.’’ 25 U.S.C. 1773g. The

Settlement Agreement provides, for the

purposes of the Agreement, that ‘‘the

federal, state and local governments

have exclusive jurisdiction for the

administration and implementation of

federal, state and local environmental

laws on non-trust lands within the 1873

Survey Area.’’ Settlement Agreement,

Section VIII(A)(3).

The Settlement Agreement defines the

1873 Survey area as the ‘‘area which is

within the area demarked by the high

water line as meandered and the upland

boundaries, as shown on the plat map

of the 1873 Survey of the Puyallup

Indian Reservation conducted by the

United States General Land Office and

filed in 1874.’’ 25 U.S.C. 1773j(1).

‘‘Trust lands’’ are defined in the

Settlement Agreement to include both

‘‘trust land’’ or ‘‘land in trust status,’’

meaning ‘‘land or any interest in land

the title to which is held in trust by the

United States for an individual Indian

or Tribe,’’ as well as ‘‘restricted land’’ or

‘‘land in restricted status,’’ meaning

‘‘land the title to which is held by an

individual Indian or Tribe and which

can be alienated or encumbered by the

owner only with the approval of the

Secretary of the Interior.’’ Settlement

Agreement, Section VIII(A). ‘‘Non-trust

lands’’ exclude those lands defined as

‘‘trust lands’’ under the Settlement

Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement

Agreement, ‘‘any federal delegation

under the federal environmental laws

within the 1873 Survey Area for nontrust lands will be solely to the State of

Washington or its political subdivisions,

and any federal delegation under the

federal environmental laws within the

1873 Survey Area for trust lands will be

solely to the Tribe.’’ Settlement

Agreement, Section VIII(A)(3). All

parties to the Settlement Agreement

concur that the term ‘‘delegation’’ was

intended to encompass ‘‘authorization’’

as well as ‘‘delegation’’ of federal

programs.

Washington’s application to extend its

authorized program to the non-trust

lands within the Survey Area, like its

predecessor base program application,

attempts to reach into Indian country

without limiting that reach to nonIndians. Washington relies on the

Settlement Act which ratifies the

Settlement Agreement, a document

which itself is silent on the issue of

jurisdiction over Indians in Indian

country on non-trust lands in the

Survey Area. In analyzing Washington’s

application, EPA’s starting place is the

Settlement Agreement.

The EPA believes the language in the

Settlement Agreement with respect to

the retention of Federal jurisdiction and

the deference given to Federal law in

the absence of other controlling law is

significant to clarifying the

authorization EPA is granting to

Washington. Neither the EPA nor the

Puyallup Tribe of Indians believes the

Settlement Agreement changed

operative federal law or superseded

relevant case law on the issue of

authority over Indians or Indian

activities. In Washington Department of

Ecology v. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir.

1985), the Ninth Circuit held that states

generally were precluded from

exercising jurisdiction over Indians in

Indian country unless Congress clearly

expressed an intention to permit such

jurisdiction. Both EPA and the Puyallup

Tribe of Indians believe the case is

relevant to the issues of state

jurisdiction related to this authorization.

In that case, the Court held that ‘‘EPA

reasonably interpreted RCRA not to

grant state jurisdiction over the

activities of Indians in Indian country.’’

Id. at 1469. The Court found this

conclusion to be well grounded in

federal Indian law and went on to say:

‘‘States are generally precluded from

exercising jurisdiction over Indians in

Indian country unless Congress has

clearly expressed an intention to permit

it.’’ Id. Moreover, ‘‘the United States in

its role as primary guarantor of Indian

interests legitimately may decide that

* * * tribal concerns can best be

addressed by maintaining federal
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36589

control over Indian lands. EPA’s

interpretation of RCRA permits this

option.’’ Id. at 1470. The Court

expressly did not decide ‘‘the question

of whether Washington is empowered to

create a program reaching into Indian

country when that reach is limited to

non-Indians.’’ Id. at 1467. Washington’s

proposed program, which was the basis

of the lawsuit, clearly attempted to

reach Indians in Indian country. Id.

The Settlement Agreement provides

for federal environmental laws within

the 1873 Survey Area on non-trust lands

to be delegated solely to the State of

Washington or its political subdivisions.

Settlement Agreement Section VIII.A.3.

In carrying out delegated authority, the

State and Tribe agree to involve each

other in a consultative manner. Id. The

Settlement Agreement also provides that

‘‘the State and its political subdivisions

will retain and exercise all jurisdiction

and governmental authority over all

non-trust lands and the activities

conducted thereon and as provided in

federal law over non-Indians.’’

Settlement at Section VIII. A.4. Based on

the language of the Settlement

Agreement as it was ratified by Congress

in the Settlement Act, EPA believes that

Washington can be authorized for the

RCRA program over the non-trust lands

within the 1873 Survey Area with

limitations.

EPA finds the Settlement Act is not a

clear expression of congressional intent

to permit the state to exercise

jurisdiction over Indians or Indian

activities on non-trust lands in the

Survey Area. The Settlement Act ratifies

the Settlement Agreement, including its

provisions for retaining federal

jurisdiction, and does not change

applicable case law and federal Indian

law concerning State jurisdiction over

Indians and Indian activities. See

Settlement Agreement at Section

VIII.A.3 and 4. Without a clear

expression of intent in the Settlement

Agreement as ratified by the Settlement

Act to confer jurisdiction on the State

over Indians or Indian activities within

the 1873 Survey Area, EPA finds that

Washington has not adequately

demonstrated jurisdiction over Indians

or Indian activities within the 1873

Survey Area. The authorization will

therefore be limited to non-trust lands

within the Survey Area and will not

extend to Indians or Indian activities on

those non-trust lands. EPA will retain

jurisdiction over trust lands and over

Indians and Indian activities on nontrust lands within the Survey Area. EPA

believes this is consistent with the

language and intent of both the

Settlement Act and Settlement

Agreement and is otherwise consistent

with federal Indian law.

A final issue to be addressed in

today’s rule is the State of Washington’s

Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘Act’’).

By letters dated June 10, 1997 and

November 20, 1997, EPA expressed its

belief that the State’s Act conflicted

with the necessary enforcement

authority required for authorization of

federal environmental programs to the

State. The Act provided that if a conflict

existed between the Act and federal

program delegation requirements,

conflicting provisions could be rendered

inoperative upon notice to the

Governor. The Attorney General for the

State of Washington acknowledged that

the Act precluded the State from

assessing a civil penalty except where a

violation either was of a specific permit

term or condition, was a repeat

violation, was a violation for which the

violator did not come into compliance

within a specified period of time, or had

a probability of placing a person in

danger of death or bodily harm, causing

more than minor environmental harm,

or causing physical damage to the

property of another in excess of one

thousand dollars. Subsequently, on

December 10, 1997, in accordance with

State law, RCW 43.05.902, the State

formally notified the Governor of

Washington that a conflict existed with

the Act and certain federal laws and

programs. As a result of the

determination of an existing conflict,

sections 605, 606, 607(3) and 608 of the

Act (prohibiting the State from issuing

civil penalties) were deemed to be

inoperative to several State programs

including the Hazardous Waste

Program. In reliance on this

determination, EPA believes the conflict

has been addressed by rendering

inoperative those portions of the Act

that conflicted with the State’s

authorized RCRA program and with this

revision request. In addition, EPA is

relying on the State’s interpretation of

another technical assistance law, RCW

43.21A.085 and .087, finding that the

law does not conflict with federal

authorization requirements because it is

a discretionary program, to conclude

that the law does not impinge on the

State’s authority to administer federal

environmental programs, including the

RCRA program. EPA understands from

the State’s interpretation that technical

assistance visits conducted by the State

will not be conducted under the

authority of RCW 43.21A.085 and .087.

C. Decision

EPA has reviewed Washington’s

application and has made a decision

that the State’s hazardous waste

program revision satisfies all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

final authorization. EPA has determined

that the State of Washington has

submitted a sufficient analysis to

support its assertion of authority over

the non-trust lands within the 1873

Survey Area of the Puyallup

Reservation, as defined in the

Settlement Act, except over Indians or

Indian activities. Consequently, EPA

intends to grant final authorization

revising Washington’s hazardous waste

program to include the non-trust lands

within the 1873 Survey Area of the

Puyallup Reservation but limiting the

authorization so that the revised

program does not extend to Indians or

Indian activities within the Survey

Area.

Washington will implement the

revised authorized program in the same

manner that the program is

implemented elsewhere in the State.

This includes all aspects of the

authorized program such as waste

designation requirements; generator,

transporter, and recycling requirements;

treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)

facility requirements; all permitting

procedures; corrective action

requirements; and compliance

monitoring, and enforcement

procedures.

All permits issued by U.S. EPA

Region 10 on non-trust lands within the

1873 Survey Area prior to final

authorization of this revision will

continue to be administered by U.S.

EPA Region 10 until the issuance or

reissuance after modification of a State

RCRA permit. Upon the effective date of

the issuance, or reissuance after

modification to incorporate authorized

State requirements, of a State RCRA

permit, those EPA-issued permit

provisions which the State is authorized

to administer and enforce will expire.

HSWA provisions for which the State is

not authorized will continue in effect

under the EPA-issued permit. EPA will

continue to implement and enforce

HSWA provisions for which the state is

not authorized.

I conclude that Washington’s

application for a program revision meets

all of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, Washington is granted

Final Authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program as revised.

Washington now has responsibility for

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA

program described in its revised

program application, subject to the

limitations of the HSWA and excluding

from its revised program authority over

Indians or Indian activities within the

1873 Survey Area. Washington also has
36590 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

primary enforcement responsibilities for

the non-trust lands within the 1873

Survey Area except over Indians and

Indian activities within the 1873 Survey

Area. EPA will retain jurisdiction over

trust lands and over Indians and Indian

activities on non-trust lands within the

Survey Area. EPA retains the right to

conduct inspections under section 3007

of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, and to take

enforcement actions under sections

3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6928, 6934 and 6973.

D. Codification in Part 272

The EPA uses 40 CFR part 272 for

codification of the decision to authorize

Washington’s program and for

incorporation by reference of those

provisions of the State’s authorized

statutes and regulations EPA will

enforce under sections 3008, 3013 and

7003 of RCRA. Therefore, EPA is

reserving amendment of 40 CFR part

272, subpart WW, until a later date.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

certain regulatory actions on state, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare

a written statement of economic and

regulatory alternatives analyses for

proposed and final rules with Federal

mandates, as defined by the UMRA, that

may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate or to the private sector of $100

million or more in any one year. The

section 202 and 205 requirements do

not apply to today’s action because this

rule does not contain a Federal mandate

that may result in annual expenditures

of $100 million or more for State, local

and/or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or the private sector. Further,

as it applies to the State, this action

does not impose a Federal

intergovernmental mandate because

UMRA does not include duties arising

from participation in a voluntary federal

program. Today’s rule effects an

administrative change by authorizing

the State to implement its hazardous

waste program in lieu of the Federal

RCRA program for the non-trust lands

within the 1873 Survey Area except

over Indians and Indian activities

within the 1873 Survey Area. To the

extent that the State’s hazardous waste

program is more stringent than the

Federal program, any new requirements

imposed on the regulated community

apply by virtue of state law; not because

of any new Federal requirement

imposed pursuant to today’s rule.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action. Before EPA establishes any

regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, section 203 of the UMRA

requires EPA to develop a small

government agency plan. This rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., as amended

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996),

whenever an agency is required to

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, it must prepare and

make available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis that

describes the effect of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). This analysis is not

required, however, if the agency’s

administrator certifies that the rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

The EPA has determined that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Today’s rule does not impose

any federal requirements on regulated

entities, whether large or small. Instead,

today’s rule effects an administrative

change by authorizing the State to

implement its hazardous waste program

in lieu of the Federal RCRA program for

the non-trust lands within the 1873

Survey Area except over Indians and

Indian activities within the 1873 Survey

Area. Today’s rule carries out Congress’

intent under both RCRA and the

Settlement Act that states should be

authorized to implement their own

hazardous waste programs as long as

those programs are equivalent to, and no

less stringent than, the Federal

hazardous waste program. In this case,

to the extent that the State’s hazardous

waste program is more stringent than

the Federal program, any new

requirements imposed on the regulated

community apply by virtue of state law;

not because of any new Federal

requirement imposed pursuant to

today’s rule.

Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Agency hereby certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This rule,

therefore, does not require a regulatory

flexibility analysis.

Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report which includes a

copy of the rule to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. The EPA will

submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in today’s

Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order

12875

Executive Order 12875 restricts, to the

extent feasible and permitted by law,

the promulgation of any regulation that

is not required by statute and that

creates a mandate upon a state, local or

Tribal government, subject to criteria

provided in the order. Today’s rule does

not impose a mandate upon a State,

local or Tribal government. Today’s rule

effects an administrative change by

authorizing the State to implement its

hazardous waste program in lieu of the

Federal RCRA program for the non-trust

lands within the 1873 Survey Area

except over Indians and Indian

activities within the Area. As such, the

final rule is not subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12875.

Compliance With Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that the Office of Management and

Budget determines is ‘‘economically

significant,’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and where EPA

determines the environmental health or

safety risk addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36591

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

The Agency has determined that the

final rule is not a covered regulatory

action as defined in the Executive Order

because it is not economically

significant and is not a health or safety

risk-based determination. Today’s rule

effects an administrative change by

authorizing the State to implement its

hazardous waste program in lieu of the

Federal RCRA program for the non-trust

lands within the 1873 Survey Area

except over Indians and Indian

activities within the 1873 Survey Area.

As such, the final rule is not subject to

the requirements of Executive Order

13045.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste

transportation, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: June 24, 1998.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–17682 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 5, 15, 18, 21, 22,

24, 26, 73, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and

101

[ET Docket No. 97–94; FCC 98–58]

Streamlining the Equipment

Authorization Process

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending

its rules to simplify the equipment

authorization processes, deregulate the

authorization requirements for certain

types of equipment, and begin

implementation of an electronic filing

system for equipment authorization

applications. These actions will greatly

reduce the complexity and burden of

the Commission’s equipment

authorization requirements so that

products can be introduced to the

market more rapidly. We believe these

actions will greatly benefit both large

and small manufacturers and encourage

the development of innovative products

that best meet consumers’ needs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugh L. Van Tuyl, (202) 418–7506 or

Julius P. Knapp, (202) 418–2468, Office

of Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order, ET

Docket 97–94, FCC 98–58, adopted

April 2, 1998, and released April 16,

1998. The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s duplication

contractor, International Transcription

Service, (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.

Summary of the Report and Order

1. On March 13, 1997, the

Commission adopted a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (Notice) 62 FR

24383, May 5, 1997, in the above

captioned proceeding. The Notice

proposed to amend parts 2, 15, 18 and

other rule parts to: (1) simplify our

existing equipment authorization

processes; (2) deregulate the equipment

authorization requirements for certain

types of equipment; and (3) provide for

electronic filing of applications for

equipment authorization. The proposals

were designed to reduce the burden of

the equipment authorization program on

manufacturers.

2. We are adopting many of the

proposed changes to simplify the

authorization process and relax the

equipment authorization requirements

for certain devices, as well as making

the rule changes necessary to implement

an electronic filing system for

applications.

Simplification of Existing Equipment

Authorization Processes

3. There are currently five different

equipment authorization procedures

specified in Subpart J of Part 2 of the

Commission’s Rules. The following is a

brief description of each procedure:

Type acceptance calls for the

manufacturer or importer to submit a

written application for review and

approval by the Commission. The

application must include a complete

technical description of the product and

a test report showing compliance with

the technical requirements. The type

acceptance procedure has traditionally

been applied to radio transmitters that

are used in authorized radio services,

such as commercial and private mobile

radio services.

Certification is similar to type

acceptance. The manufacturer or

importer must submit a written

application that includes a technical

description of the product and a test

report showing compliance with the

Commission’s technical standards.

Certification has traditionally been used

for low power, unlicensed consumer

devices that operate under Parts 15 and

18 of the rules.

Notification requires submittal of a

written application, but no test report is

required unless specifically requested

by the Commission. Notification has

been used for a variety of products that

demonstrated a good record of

compliance, but the Commission found

it appropriate to maintain some degree

of oversight.

Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is a

relatively new self-approval procedure

that was established in connection with

the Commission’s deregulation of the

certification requirements for personal

computer equipment. The DoC

procedure calls for the manufacturer or

importer to test the equipment to

determine compliance with the FCC

standards. The laboratory performing